1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Interesting View I Heard

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by CubeX, Apr 22, 2008.

  1. CubeX

    CubeX New Member

    Jul 12, 2003
    Likes Received:
    Hi, I was wanting to see if anyone else has ever heard of the following before. However, let me give a brief summary of my thought process and what I've been learning:

    I used to believe that all translations were essentially the same until I started studying the whole debate about KJB only verses Modern Translations. Most of the time the arguments were full of wind and easily dismissed as personal opinion until I finally heard a great argument. The argument was that the Wescott-aland Greek texts that underline the MVs as the base text are based on texts from Alexandria where Gnosticism was very prevelant. These texts are older, but being older doesn't neccessarily mean that the texts are closer to what the original manuscripts contained. So here's my question:

    Can it be shown the texts used for the Wescott text were corrupted by the "Gnostics" for the sake of gnostic teachings?

    This is a complex question that requires many others, but I figured it would be worth a shot to find out what others might know about it. If you can, could you post any sites, books, etc. that I could use?

    - Dave
  2. exscentric

    exscentric Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    May 24, 2004
    Likes Received:
    " Can it be shown the texts used for the Wescott text were corrupted by the "Gnostics" for the sake of gnostic teachings?"

    If this could be shown would not there be fifteen books on the subject from the KJVO folks? (Maybe there are :) don't know but I'm sure if there was REAL proof the board would have a number of short threads where it was shown and noone had an arguement. :thumbs:
  3. Pastor_Bob

    Pastor_Bob Well-Known Member

    Jul 15, 2002
    Likes Received:
    I personally believe this very thing happened, although I do not believe the text was deliberately "corrupted" for the sake of corrupting it. I believe that the text was altered to reflect their theological positions. I will concede, however, that there is no way to prove it beyond a doubt. It does seem quite coincidental that many changes in the text alter it to reflect a gnostic viewpoint.
  4. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Aug 23, 2002
    Likes Received:
    I’m no big fan of Bart Ehrman but he gave a lecture last year that's avaiable on YouTube, called
    Misquoting Jesus: Scribes who altered Scriptures… [LINK]
    It hits some of the buttons you asked about in the OP.

    The lecture itself is slightly less than 1 hour, Q/A afterwards goes on for almost another hour.

    Part of the problem with the Byzantine/textus receptus line is that it doesn't show up until at least 800 years after the NT text was written.

    Would you rather use a base text found 200+ years after the original
    or one found 800 to 1200+ years after the originals?
    Which one would have the greater likelihood of being manipulated?

  5. EdSutton

    EdSutton New Member

    Jan 9, 2006
    Likes Received:
    This question, while perhaps appearing plausible at first glance, is still "question begging".

    A "cultist" seemingly has no more problem of manipulating one version that he does another.

    Two cases in Point, for a cult. Jehovah Witnesseses had little more problem presenting false teachings when the predominate version the group used was first - the KJV; second - the ASV; third - the 'Emphatic Diaglott'; and now the NWT.

    Likewise the "Seventh Day Adventists" did not suddenly "get into heresy" with, and/or because of the appearance of the CWT.

    And many of the 'orthodox' are little better, in this regard, as to 'manipulating' any version of Scripture, in attempting to 'prove' a point. It is little more difficult to 'manipulate' one version, than it is to 'manipulate' another.

    #5 EdSutton, Apr 23, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 23, 2008
  6. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Jul 31, 2000
    Likes Received:
    Well, part of the book of Daniel was written by NEBUCHADNEZZAR, a Babylonian who'd been taught of Bel, Nergal, etc. his whole life until the righteous Jews were brought into his court. But yet we see no influence from those idols in Neb's writing.

    The JWs' NWT was made in 1950 by two man, Fred Franz & George Gangas, who sat down with the RV of 1880, which wasn't too well-known in the USA, & altered it to reflect the JW doctrines. That had nothing to do with any ancient mss.

    If one REALLY STUDIES what gnosticism actually consists of, one would really hafta stretch his imagination to find it in the Alex mss. basically, gnosticism is a belief that the world, and all people, were created by a powerful, but imperfect spirit called the DEMIURGE, which co-exists with a remote, unknowable, perfect Supreme being.

    I don't believe any of the Alex mss teach anything but the creation of the universe by GOD. I don't believe any of them teach that God is remote and unfathomable. What I DO see is that some gnostics twisted the facts about Jesus' time on earth, saying He was sent to bring gnosis(knowledge) to mankind.

    While outright gnosticism has largely died out, many of its ideas live on in New Age philospphy which stresses some remote, unknowable Intelligence as having made all existence, that intelligence being merely a force and not a Personage.

    While some accuse the Alex mss as being riddled with gnostic terminology, I believe gnosticism adapted many of its terms from Judeo-Christian religion, and not vice versa. thus, we cannot criticize those mss for using such terms.

    But I leave the BEST answer to the question to those who have actually read the Alex mss AND have a good working knowledge of gnosticism. I have merely scratched the surface and offered my OPINION.